I think you are assuming I meant more than what I said. I never said it wasn't willed with imagery.What on earth- are you serious? You dont know that Revelation is filled with imagery that signifies something else?
Much of the book is symbols, but certainly not all of it. There are 518 OT references in Revelation, and they all explain what each symbol means if it isn't explained in the book, itself. In other words, every symbol in Revelation is explained.The whole book of Revelation is SYMBOLS.
Anything outside of that paradigm is not a symbol.
““these who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”” (Revelation 17:14)
Does that mean the saints are symbolically with Jesus?
“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:5)
Does that mean the dead who came to life experienced a symbolic resurrection?
From these two examples and others...Just because one entity is identified with another does not mean it is a symbol. Many times, it is...but not every time. Sometimes associative language is used to describe rather than symbolize. Since associative language isn't consistent throughout the book, it is not a bulletproof argument that the lake of fire is a symbol for the second death. I will admit that it is a good one, but it has a few holes. I will think more about what you said.